Le none.

Technically, if God created everything, then everything is evidence for Creationism.

Apparently, there are dipshits on both sides of the argument.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

No, then everything is the RESULT of Creationism.., not evidence. OMG, I made a universe, but can't create anything that makes it known that it was created by a guided hand, an intelligent being, not just pure chance. I guess they'll just have to figure it out for themselves.

If you want evidence, you'd have to have reasons why each thing, each material, exists.

can you say circular logic?

the truth is, the universe was blown out of the nose of a giant earwig. the existence of the universe proves it.

prove me wrong!

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



No, then everything is the RESULT of Creationism.., not evidence. OMG, I made a universe, but can't create anything that makes it known that it was created by a guided hand, an intelligent being, not just pure chance. I guess they'll just have to figure it out for themselves.

If you want evidence, you'd have to have reasons why each thing, each material, exists.

You are blind to the fact that we as humans simply cannot comprehend something like this. You will NEVER find convincing, conclusive evidence for either side. Unless there's something after you die, in which case it's a possibility.

As it stands, we just cannot and never will be able to understand it in our current form. There will always be a "why?" or "what came before that?"

I realize you very much want to believe and know that you're right, but I'm sorry, nobody knows and nobody will.

Earwigs could not have existed without a universe to support them... even a giant one. And if it was so huge, it's legs couldn't support its weight.

Proof Positive.

Logically, God either necessarily exists or God does not necessarily exist.

God cannot not necessarily exist. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

But that logic doesn't do much good in the real world.

...and BTW, my remark was in response to Rabbi's claim that everything was evidence of Creationism.

And hey, chicken-fucker... how does that make me a dipshit?!

Uh-huh... hide behind the fact

"you can never understand... "

^ Yes, it is a fact. You can't understand it. That means you'll never know if there is a God or if there isn't a God until you die. And if there isn't, you'll still never know.

It's just entirely pointless even thinking about unanswerable questions like this. Go get a girlfriend or something, enjoy life.

EDIT: Geez, I sound like a Buddhist.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

You are blind to the fact that we as humans simply cannot comprehend something like this. You will NEVER find convincing, conclusive evidence for either side. Unless there's something after you die, in which case it's a possibility.

As it stands, we just cannot and never will be able to understand it in our current form. There will always be a "why?" or "what came before that?"

I realize you very much want to believe and know that you're right, but I'm sorry, nobody knows and nobody will.

my point precisely. there is no evidence for god or creationism.

Hey, in case you didn't know, a FACT is something that can be proven wrong, not something that is assumed right.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Hey, in case you didn't know, a FACT is something that can be proven wrong, not something that is assumed right.

Ok, prove me wrong that you can never know for sure whether or not there is a God.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

my point precisely. there is no evidence for god or creationism.



So why are you fighting for the Dark Side?

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

my point precisely. there is no evidence for god or creationism.



There's evidence, but none that you would accept. So why bother?

Seriously, what do you benefit from arguing stupid shit like this? If it IS all for naught and life is all there is, shouldn't you be spending it on something more important? And more to the point, what the fuck do you care if some looneys want to spend their life bowing down to an imaginary friend?

You seem to be awfully interested in discrediting something that doesn't exist in your mind to discredit.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Logically, God either necessarily exists or God does not necessarily exist.

God cannot not necessarily exist. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

But that logic doesn't do much good in the real world.



You wanna give some proof that He cannot not be necessary?

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

^ Yes, it is a fact. You can't understand it. That means you'll never know if there is a God or if there isn't a God until you die. And if there isn't, you'll still never know.

It's just entirely pointless even thinking about unanswerable questions like this. Go get a girlfriend or something, enjoy life.

EDIT: Geez, I sound like a Buddhist.



Hey I have a girlfriend...

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:



You wanna give some proof that He cannot not be necessary?

There is none, but according to the rules of logic that proof is correct. That's why I said that logic doesn't do much good in reality.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

There is none, but according to the rules of logic that proof is correct. That's why I said that logic doesn't do much good in reality.



Ok.. WTF? You say that He cannot NOt be necessary, and then say there's no proof for the fact.

And you then claim that you're correct.

AND THEN say LOGIC has no place in REALITY. Whuh?

Sorry, it's the truth. The proof I stated is pure logic.

God(as in an omnipotent, eternal being) either exists, as in his existence is necessary to the existence of existence, or he does not. God cannot exist and not be necessary to the existence of existence, or he'd just be part of existence. Therefore, God must exist necessarily to the existence of existence.

Confusing, isn't it? Rather pointless, too.

EDIT: It also doesn't allow for the possibility of God not existing at all. Logically, it's correct, but actually, it's flawed.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

There's evidence, but none that you would accept. So why bother?

quote:

You will NEVER find convincing, conclusive evidence...

...

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Sorry, it's the truth. The proof I stated is pure logic.

God(as in an omnipotent, eternal being) either exists, as in his existence is necessary to the existence of existence, or he does not. God cannot exist and not be necessary to the existence of existence, or he'd just be part of existence. Therefore, God must exist necessarily to the existence of existence.

Confusing, isn't it? Rather pointless, too.

EDIT: It also doesn't allow for the possibility of God not existing at all. Logically, it's correct, but actually, it's flawed.





of course it's flawed. so why did you post it?

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



...



"..." http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Again, any evidence I offer to you would not be convincing to you. You would dismiss it no matter how convincing or conclusive. You'll say you wouldn't, but that's the truth.

And yes, at the end of the day, you'll still never find completely definite evidence, and neither will I.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



of course it's flawed. so why did you post it?

To dismiss the idea that it's logical to assume that God does not exist. Logically, it can be proven that he does. It still all comes down to belief.

"Logic" is a oft misused word.

so what are we arguing about then? we both agree that there is no evidence for creationism.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

so what are we arguing about then? we both agree that there is no evidence for creationism.

No, I am arguing that there is no evidence for both creationism and no creationism.

Besides that, what is your definition of "creationism"? One could easily say that God created the mechanism of evolution, for example.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

To dismiss the idea that it's logical to assume that God does not exist. Logically, it can be proven that he does. It still all comes down to belief.

"Logic" is a oft misused word.

*head explodes*

as far as i can tell you are presenting a butchered form of the ontological proof for god. which in the end is circular logic. so no, it is not a sound logical proof. sorry. stop repeating yourself over and over, please.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

No, I am arguing that there is no evidence for both creationism and no creationism.



good god, you can't be serious. no evidence for no creationism=evidence for creationism? i don't think so. on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

quote:

Besides that, what is your definition of "creationism"? One could easily say that God created the mechanism of evolution, for example.



sure, we could easily say that god created evolution. but that would be saying nothing. that leads into an infinite regression-what created god? god is simply not needed in science, and god and creationism should not be taught in science classes. that is my basic point.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:



good god, you can't be serious. no evidence for no creationism=evidence for creationism? i don't think so. on the other hand, there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

You completely misunderstood me. I am saying that there is no concrete evidence for either. Evolution is seperate from creationism not existing, because evolution could very well be part of creationism.

quote:

sure, we could easily say that god created evolution. but that would be saying nothing. that leads into an infinite regression-what created god? god is simply not needed in science, and god and creationism should not be taught in science classes. that is my basic point.

Dude, nowhere in this thread up until now did you mention anything like this. The OP was blank.

In any case, I agree that religion should not be taught in science classes.



[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

if there is no evidence either way for creationism, then there is no point in discussing it other than for entertainment.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

if there is no evidence either way for creationism, then there is no point in discussing it other than for entertainment.

Yes, that's what I said twenty posts ago. And surely there are far more entertaining things to do than this.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Yes, that's what I said twenty posts ago. And surely there are far more entertaining things to do than this.

although you did say there is no evidence, you also paradoxically repeatedly insisted that there is evidence.

quote:

Technically, if God created everything, then everything is evidence for Creationism.

God cannot not necessarily exist. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

There's evidence, but none that you would accept.

quote:Originally posted by kenwih:

although you did say there is no evidence, you also paradoxically repeatedly insisted that there is evidence.



What do you fail understand about the difference between 'evidence' and 'evidence that you would accept'?

Personal experiences of my own are concrete evidence to me. NDEs and EVPs are more evidence as well, but would you accept those or even consider it? No, I don't think you would.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Logically, God either necessarily exists or God does not necessarily exist.

God cannot not necessarily exist. Therefore, God necessarily exists.

But that logic doesn't do much good in the real world.

That’s very stupid.

Logically, God either exists or God does not exist.

The added word ‘necessary’ is just you playing stupid word games to trick people.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



That’s very stupid.

Logically, God either exists or God does not exist.

The added word ‘necessary’ is just you playing stupid word games to trick people.

It's not my logic. It's a stripped down and simplified version of Godel's ontological proof.

Then Godel is the idiot.

It’s necessary for some human’s to invent a god.

Even if there is a god, I very much doubt it is anything like the Christian god, which the creationists believe in.

In fact, it’d be nothing like how we imagine it to be.

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



It’s necessary for some human’s to invent a god.



So where do you think it first came from?

There has to be a genesis, the first person to imagine a big guy in the sky.

Of course, common thought is that humans first created gods to represent forces that they did not understand, such as natural disasters and weather, but it still begs the question: who came up with it first, and how?

And if the first human really did create it out of nothing, why do so and how are we able to?

All of this is pointless to ponder, of course. You'll never know.

You ever heard of a little thing called imagination?

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

You ever heard of a little thing called imagination?

Of course. What is the nature of imagination?

How can you visualize something that you have no concept of?

See, now we're getting into all kinds of meaningless philosophy. I suggest we abolish this forum, it's pointless.

Yeah . . . . You need to watch a David Cronenberg movie. He’s come up with LOTS of images that came from his imagination, really fucked up things I would never think of.

Imagination isn’t real, it has nothing to do with reality.

I agree. I dislike a lot of philosophy that doesn’t deal with real life. I like existentialism because it concerns real life and is about surviving in an absurd world. Kant and his merry lot, on the other hand, were just philosophically wanking about things that aren’t necessary in this world and cannot be proven as true or false.

I love how it never occurs to a Muslim that Mohammed was lying, to a Mormon that Smith was lying, same goes for all other religions. Religion is built on hope, denial, lies, and fear.



[This message has been edited by Adrenochrome (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:



Imagination isn’t real, it has nothing to do with reality.

And yet it exists, so it MUST be part of reality.

Creationists claim creationism is a valid scientific theory.

Why are we talking about philosophy and theology here?

If it's a valid theory then there should be evidence to support it (which does not include evidence only against evolution).

1. A Perfect Being, by definition, is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.

2. Evil exists.

3. Therefore, a Perfect Being does not exist.

God didn't create everything. You did.

" A fact is something that can be proved wrong"

That's a contradiction ,a fact is something that is true ,if you prove something wrong ,it was never a fact in the first place



fullywired

[This message has been edited by fullywired (edited 05-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

1. A Perfect Being, by definition, is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good.

2. Evil exists.

3. Therefore, a Perfect Being does not exist.

Nice, that's a good one too.

Of course, the possible variations in the definitions of good and evil make it defeatable as well.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Nice, that's a good one too.

Of course, the possible variations in the definitions of good and evil make it defeatable as well.

Go ahead, Rabbi.

Ok. God, in his process of doing good, creates evil in order to further highlight the greatness of good. Evil is part of the wholly good. Plus, there's also the free will wild card.

[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 05-03-2006).]

He is omnipotent, therefore, he must posses the power to highlight the "greatness of good", without the use of evil. Try again.

If he is omnipotent, why is he unable to simply decide that he wants to utilize that method?

Because he is also wholly good. Deliberately choosing a "method" which causes harm, when you have absolutely no need to do so, and when that method provides no other benefit, is not "wholly good".

Well, I'd have trouble topping that. I guess God is just not wholly good.

Or he doesn't exist. If he does exist, and he is omnipotent but chooses not to be wholly good ("chooses" because he has the power to be so, by his own omnipotence) then he's an asshole.

Epicurus stands strong.

Well, of course he's an asshole. Have you read the Old Testament?

so, no scientific or even para-scientific evidence for creationism?

right-o

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

What do you fail understand about the difference between 'evidence' and 'evidence that you would accept'?



whether i would accept it or not is irrelevant. evidence is evidence.

quote:

Personal experiences of my own are concrete evidence to me. NDEs and EVPs are more evidence as well, but would you accept those or even consider it? No, I don't think you would.

hell, i can astral project with about a 15% success rate without drugs. even if you totally accept that nde, evp, and obe are 100% true and a reality, they don't have anything do to with creationism and, in most cases, god.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Ok. God, in his process of doing good, creates evil in order to further highlight the greatness of good. Evil is part of the wholly good. Plus, there's also the free will wild card.



If free will exists, then a Perfect Being is no longer omniscient. Hence, there is no Perfect Being.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Well, of course he's an asshole. Have you read the Old Testament?

This applies to any god, Judeo-Christian or not.

I should also add that "asshole" was an understatement. He would be the epitome of evil; a disgusting entity worthy of no praise or veneration.

God wasn't an asshole, he is just and gave the people what they deserved. Times were alot harder back then and they had to be treated differently than they are now. Just because he punished people doesn't mean he's a bad guy... a parent is the same way, he disciplines his children not because he likes to "be an asshole," but because he cares enough for them to get them on the right track. You might ask, well parents don't kill their children, well that is different because God knows more than a parent would because he is God and he killed them for His reasons. (Btw it isn't considered murder because God isn't man and it isn't breaking his law, He is the creator, the destroyer, and the everlasting Being.)

[This message has been edited by Supero Mortis (edited 05-04-2006).]

you don't understand what the fuck he is talking about. you are not even responding to his argument.

quote:Originally posted by Supero Mortis:

God wasn't an asshole, he is just and gave the people what they deserved. Times were alot harder back then and they had to be treated differently than they are now. Just because he punished people doesn't mean he's a bad guy... a parent is the same way, he disciplines his children not because he likes to "be an asshole," but because he cares enough for them to get them on the right track. You might ask, well parents don't kill their children, well that is different because God knows more than a parent would because he is God and he killed them for His reasons. (Btw it isn't considered murder because God isn't man and it isn't breaking his law, He is the creator, the destroyer, and the everlasting Being.)



-The forefathers of this great country were even smart enough themselves to implement the rule of law. This states that no one is above the law, be it the president, the rich, or anyone. If God does not need to follow his moral absolute perfect laws, then they are either not perfect, or God is not.

-The fact that God changes based directly off how the people of that time would perceive him should tip a rational person off that God invented back then. Considering the bible is full of the same prejudices of the times shows that it is not this perfect God writing it, it is just some guys who were themselves bigoted because of the environment they lived in.

It's very surprising how far strung this bigotry has reached, to the point of ridiculous justifications (eg how women can't be priests). The books were written all by men, and they were incredibly sexist, and the men of the time were sexist, but supposedly it is still God's perfect word.

God just does what is expected of him by the people eh?

In other words, God gives in to peer pressure.

For chrissake, even I am a stronger person then that.

quote:Originally posted by Supero Mortis:

God wasn't an asshole, he is just and gave the people what they deserved. Times were alot harder back then and they had to be treated differently than they are now. Just because he punished people doesn't mean he's a bad guy... a parent is the same way, he disciplines his children not because he likes to "be an asshole," but because he cares enough for them to get them on the right track. You might ask, well parents don't kill their children, well that is different because God knows more than a parent would because he is God and he killed them for His reasons. (Btw it isn't considered murder because God isn't man and it isn't breaking his law, He is the creator, the destroyer, and the everlasting Being.)





Sorry, but that shitty argument doesn't cut it.

When a parent punishes their children, we do not see it as bad because of two reasons:

1. The lesson the child will ultimately learn is a good one.

2. The parent lacks the ability to teach that same (or better) lesson, by other less harmful means.

God is omnipotent, and therefore, he can achieve anything he wants, without the use of punishment; meaning that his "punishments" are fundamentally unnecessary.

Deliberately choosing to cause needless harm onto others is not omnibenevolence by any reasonable definition.

The point stands: he would be a disgusting entity, not worthy of any praise or reverence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-04-2006).]

Word.

Rust, may I just say I always enjoy reading your posts. It's good to see some people out there kicking ass intellectually, against the hordes of idiocy we often face. Rock on, man.

quote:Originally posted by Albatross:

Rust, may I just say I always enjoy reading your posts. It's good to see some people out there kicking ass intellectually, against the hordes of idiocy we often face. Rock on, man.

Agreed.

I had actually contemplated making a "Rust Appreciation" thread in SG.

Thanks